Betteridge’s law of headlines is an adage that states: “Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no.”
Ok, then do tramp and elon next.
No
Also: No.
The more we talk about that, the less we talk about how the President is a pedophile rapist, human trafficker, and murderer.
…con man, misogynist, fat piece of shit, failed businessman, racist, deathly sick, fraudster, incontinent, criminal… yes, each time he adds a new adjective describing his actions or how disgusting of a person he is we talk less about the previous.
Maybe we just start requiring “etc.” on any list.
So oppressed with the Epstein files that well do absolutely knowing you want us to ignore what is happening now. The us invaded a sovereign country and is taking it over.
We’re not supposed to talk about the US kidnapping a leader of a sovereign nation?
I think we can walk and chew gum.
I think we should talk about it, and we should demand that our representatives do something about it. I’m saying that he’s done it to distract from his other crimes.
No he hasn’t done it to distract from his other crimes. For one whyr the fuck does he care nothing well happen to him.
You don’t think so? Why then?
You haven’t learned then.
There are things more important sometimes.
But yes, the child trafficking US president deserves to be thrown in jail for life.
more important
Idk if the Epstein files are more important than the Venezuela invasion, literally. But I think it’s more foundationally important.
What I mean by this is that the Epstein files show definitively that trump is a criminal with evidence of child rape and whatever other financial crimes. This means he is an illegitimately elected president, should never have been allowed to assume office legally and should be in prison. The evidence is in the Epstein files.
If this is true, which it is, the decisions he’s been making, including Venezuela should never have happened.
By law the Epstein files were supposed to be released, and they haven’t been. The DOJ and trump are hiding the evidence. Rule of law and our DOJ aren’t working as designed.
Personally I think the Epstein fiasco is still the most important as it means trump shouldn’t even be here doing all this stuff right now.
The Pam Bondi bribery scandal should have been enough to make both ineligible for office even before his first term.
However, it seems the lesson US society collectively learned from Watergate is that the executive should be immune from prosecution.
He is here though and we all knew before that he’s a criminal. The Epstein files won’t bring him to justice. So they don’t really matter, do they?
Nope that is the dumb thing people keep screaming Epstein files but nothing we’ll come of it. He’s rich and rich people don’t suffer consequence unless they need a fall guy.
That’s the thing. We already knew he was a womanizer, pedophile, rapist. Maybe taking about something new will make the right finally snap out of it because they don’t care about the fore mentioned things
Maybe taking about something new will make the right finally snap out
Lmfao.
It’s something like 39%, that 39%(I don’t remember the exact number) of support is a literal cult that NEVER stops supporting him. That’s his absolute floor. He has never gone below that level of support and never will. There were people actively questioning if being a pedophile was really all that bad just to defend him. Megan Kelly literally defended him saying “at least they weren’t like 8, they were barely legal.” Those people would accept any rational Fox news gave them as to why trump needed to kill their own family members and take their property away leaving them homeless. They’d blame themselves.
It fucking disgusts me and leaves me feeling completely hopeless…
Trump being a criminal pedo was coming knowledge and it didn’t stop him from getting elected because Americans are too fucking stupid to know any better.
Redirecting every criticism to some other thing is exactly how flooding the zone is supposed to work.
Well done.
Well, Petey Kegsbreath said they were f’ing around. That sounds kind of lawyer-y, doesn’t it?
I’d rather he’d do it to Russia. I think both Trump and Maduro are despicable evil people, but if we’re seeing deterioration of international laws already, I’d rather watch Putin being arrested and Russia to be put under western control. But of course, Trump won’t bite the hand that allegedly feeds him.
Edit:typo
Why even contemplate this when he rolled out a red carpet for him only a few months ago?
Who knows, who cares. It’s all staring to feel pretty hopeless
Yes, and that’s called being powerful enough to decide legality
It’s almost like we live in a country that’s spent a century positioning itself to do this whenever it wants. “How could this happen???”
“No”
No fucking chance. Will someone please delete Cheeto in chief
From now on, I’m calling the paedophile in chief the Turbulent Priest. Maybe someone will solve it.
On the plus side, this fucker has given me a reason to live. I am now determined to outlive him out of spite.
I hope you’ll find hate-happiness
If the US faces no consequences for the invasion of Venezuela, experts believe it could embolden other countries to carry out operations which may contravene international law.
“The most obvious consequence is that China will take the opportunity to invade Taiwan,” Robertson said. “This is the most appropriate time for it to do so, bolstered by the precedent of Trump’s invasion of Venezuela and of course his appeasement of Russia in its invasion of Ukraine. In fact, I would say that Trump’s invasion of Venezuela is the crime of aggression, the same crime Putin has committed by invading Ukraine.”
funny how this works - the media has an opportunity to call out the US for being a piece of shit and yet they pivot to “yeah but what if (insert communist nation here)”
capitalism will do anything to keep it from criticizing itself.
If only you read as far as the 4th paragraph of the article…
The experts the Guardian spoke to agreed that the US is likely to have violated the terms of the UN charter, which was signed in October 1945 and designed to prevent another conflict on the scale of the second world war. A central provision of this agreement – known as article 2(4) – rules that states must refrain from using military force against other countries and must respect their sovereignty.
Geoffrey Robertson KC, a founding head of Doughty Street Chambers and a former president of the UN war crimes court in Sierra Leone, said the attack on Venezuela was contrary to article 2(4) of the charter. “The reality is that America is in breach of the United Nations charter,” he added. “It has committed the crime of aggression, which the court at Nuremberg described as the supreme crime, it’s the worst crime of all.”
Elvira Domínguez-Redondo, a professor of international law at Kingston University, described the operation as a “crime of aggression and unlawful use of force against another country”. Susan Breau, a professor of international law and a senior associate research fellow at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, agreed that the attack could have only been considered lawful if the US had a resolution from the UN security council or was acting in self-defence. “There is just no evidence whatsoever on either of those fronts,” Breau said.
my comment was in reference to the US simps that always show up in replies.
Seriously. “The US doing this horrific evil thing might allow China to do a bad thing in the future!”
How about “the US is a horrible evil country that has done this horrible evil thing.”
The same person quoted also said that, in this article.
Geoffrey Robertson KC, a founding head of Doughty Street Chambers and a former president of the UN war crimes court in Sierra Leone, said the attack on Venezuela was contrary to article 2(4) of the charter. “The reality is that America is in breach of the United Nations charter,” he added. “It has committed the crime of aggression, which the court at Nuremberg described as the supreme crime, it’s the worst crime of all.”
The only country who might be emboldened by this is the fucking US itself, to start yet another conflict, just like they always do.
Oh no the country that hasn’t even been involved in a conflict in 50 years might invade!1! Never mind the country that’s been invading, bombing, couping, and backing terrorists and war criminals non-stop for like, most of its existence.
No and both Schumer and Jefferies appear to be complicit, at least via the bird site.
They’re going to ask politely for a vote in Congress to give Trump permission to be fascist. And when the request for the vote is ignored, they’re going to diligently line up to support the next NDAA funding measure that made this criminal act possible while shaking their heads to let you know they don’t like how it is being used.
That seems to be the thrust of their criticism. No problem with the action, simply disappointed that he didn’t ask for permission.
Utterly worthless, and the both of them need to be replaced, 9 months ago when they demonstrated their inability to meet the moment
$5 says they also increase military budget while fundraising off Trump invading. Just like any other time him or gop do something terrible
Yes, they totally fucking suck. Now let’s talk about the real issue, our pedo prez just invaded a country, took the preseident and his wife and are now threatening to do that to a lot of other countries for their oil money. Can we focus on that right now?
Thank you.
One issue is the dems response is either positive or saying trump needed to let them vote to authorize, as the dems say they would have voted for it and are only upset for not telling congress not attacking another country. Just like when he attacked Iran.
Ah yes. Let’s ideate on a person we have no control or influence over instead of people in political power whom we do have a degree of influence over. Surely spinning our tires over how bad Trump is instead of focusing pressure on, at least allegedly, politically aligned individuals we might be able to make demands of.
Shouting into the void about ‘Trump’ bad instead of focusing criticism where it might make a difference is a better strategy.
We get it. “Orange man bad”, but Schumer’s and Jefferies basically supporting this is actually worse because they are litterally the only tools we have at our disposal to stop him.
Are you saying…right now…that the BIRD BIRD BIRD! BIRD IS THE WORD! BABABABA BIRD BIRD BIRD, BIRD IS THE WORD!!!
PapapapapapapapapapapaPAPAPAPA
PAPA OO MOW MOW PAPA OO MOW MA MOW
It’s not legal, but there is a lot of precedent for it, which usually defines law. Presidents haven’t declared war since the Korean war, so all of those military engagements weren’t acts of war since because we said so (but they still are).
Now, before we started ignoring declaring war, we still ignored “the law” frequently since at least the early 1900s maybe earlier. And, of course, we were founded by law breaking. So, breaking the law is a long American tradition.
